> So there are two error counters which count PHY errors. The mask
> register controls which events trigger that counter.
> So AR_PHY_ERR_1 is counter 1, AR_PHY_ERR_MASK_1 is the mask regiser
> for AR_PHY_ERR_1 which controls which PHY errors increment that
> counter.
> Same for _2.
>
Okay.
My ques
I dont know, sorry,
--- On Thu, 5/17/12, Sarah Sharp wrote:
From: Sarah Sharp
Subject: Re: [RFC 13/13] USB: Disable hub-initiated LPM for comms devices.
To: "Tilman Schmidt"
Cc: gigaset307x-com...@lists.sourceforge.net, libertas-...@lists.infradead.org,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" , linux-...@vger.k
Am 16.05.2012 23:55, schrieb Sarah Sharp:
> Set the disable_hub_initiated_lpm flag for for all USB communications
> drivers. I know there aren't currently any USB 3.0 devices that
> implement these class specifications, but we should be ready if they do.
I follow the argument for class drivers. B
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 07:07:32PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 16.05.2012 23:55, schrieb Sarah Sharp:
> > Set the disable_hub_initiated_lpm flag for for all USB communications
> > drivers. I know there aren't currently any USB 3.0 devices that
> > implement these class specifications, but we
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:29:22AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> One of the problems with this patch is that several mailing lists
> rejected it because of the large number of recipients in the Cc list,
> even when just the mailing lists were on the Cc list. Should I break it
> up into a series of p
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 07:49:51AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:52:20PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > > > The Intel Windows fol
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:52:20PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > > [Resending with a smaller Cc list]
> > >
> > > Hub-initiated LPM is not good for USB communicati
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > [Resending with a smaller Cc list]
> >
> > Hub-initiated LPM is not good for USB communications devices. Comms
> > devices should be able to tell when their link
[Resending with a smaller Cc list]
Hub-initiated LPM is not good for USB communications devices. Comms
devices should be able to tell when their link can go into a lower power
state, because they know when an incoming transmission is finished.
Ideally, these devices would slam their links into a
[[Resending with a smaller Cc list]
USB 3.0 Link Power Management (LPM) is designed to allow individual
links in the bus to go into lower power states. There are two ways a
link can enter a lower power state:
1. Device-initiated LPM. When a USB device decides it can go into a
lower power link s
[Resending with a smaller Cc list]
The USB 3.0 bus specification added a new (optional) low power mechanism
called Link Power Management (LPM). This mechanism takes advantage of
the fact that USB 3.0 packets are routed, not broadcast across the bus.
It does not help *at all* with USB 2.0 devices.
The USB 3.0 bus specification added a new (optional) low power mechanism
called Link Power Management (LPM). This mechanism takes advantage of
the fact that USB 3.0 packets are routed, not broadcast across the bus.
It does not help *at all* with USB 2.0 devices.
The idea is that when links betwee
USB 3.0 Link Power Management (LPM) is designed to allow individual
links in the bus to go into lower power states. There are two ways a
link can enter a lower power state:
1. Device-initiated LPM. When a USB device decides it can go into a
lower power link state, it sends a message to the paren
Hub-initiated LPM is not good for USB communications devices. Comms
devices should be able to tell when their link can go into a lower power
state, because they know when an incoming transmission is finished.
Ideally, these devices would slam their links into a lower power state,
using the device-
Hello ath9k team:
On our device the cpu and memory is enough. At the highest time
cpu only use 20%. But when the PC ping our AP seems some problem always happen
,but we can't find out the reason .
1 when there is only 1 user PC. The user ping the AP, we can
see
15 matches
Mail list logo
